The shock of Phoenix being a blonde is not that she is blonde, it is that we are already familiar with her image from the game and she is not a blonde. I cannot explain this change from Barmanbek and I hope that if there is a Culpa Innata 2 it will be the same actress, like the trailer suggests.

Perhaps Barmanbek thought ahead and wondered if this was ever to become a film, for reasons he could explain, he would prefer her as a blonde. She is so intelligent anyway that it is certainly breaking apart all the dumb blonde stereotypes.

Incidentally, this intelligence does not come across that obviously in the game, perhaps because the player controls her. Another interesting difference from game to novel is that it was not clear in the game if we should get these immigrants to fail their security interview or not, and it changed nothing to the story. In the novel it is completely different, and the consequences lead to a whole crisis at the GPSN. It is a big part of the story.

If I write this more substantial review, I think I will ask questions of Barmanbek first, and I will ask him why he turned Phoenix into a blonde. Any of you have any other questions I should ask him?

As Sunny said in so blonde "why are blond jokes so short? Because it is the only way brunettes can remember them."

I did love that game.

Rmt, I actually agree, it's strange picturing Phoenix as blonde when we're so used to the visual of her with dark hair (or sometimes red hair when you picked out certain outfits. ) Maybe he always wanted her to be blonde, but because of the trend of dark haired female leads (brown haired Kate Walker, auburn haired April Ryan) felt it would be better to go with that look? Or perhaps it's as you said, he wanted to break apart from the stereotype when he wrote the novel. Really, it would only be jarring for those of us who played the game. People who read the novel first would have no preconceived image of Phoenix.

Neither of these things explain why some characters had name changes, though. Perhaps he just felt certain things would flow better in the novel versus the game. Ah, you two are really making me want to read the book!

And if he does do a film version, I want to play Phoenix.

_________________________
Interrogator: [True or false?] All mangoes are golden. Nothing golden is cheap. Conclusion - all mangoes are cheap.

And I will play Roger Arnett. I look forward reaching him in the book because his whole philosophy of image making for Arrivees is almost anti World Union. So it shows that the rules are not the same for people with a low HDI and the ones at the top. It should be very interesting in the book, and I bet Barmanbek found ways to make it much more explosive.

By the way, Phoenix is not the only one who went for a change in hair colour to blonde. I think one of the girls in the Thing store also became a blonde, and Lieutenant Ulrika Thorssen from the GPSN military as well. This is crazy, most women have become blondes! Maybe Barmanbek thought it would look more futuristic.

Good choice of roles, rmt. I know, that's why I found conversations with Roger so fascinating in game. It seemed as though he actually knew more than he was letting on as well, but he felt Phoenix wasn't ready for the information. I kept getting annoyed with her when she refused to speak with him any further.

Okay, now that is odd that so many formerly brunette characters are now blonde. What about Dagmar who was a blonde? No change? And what color hair does Sandra have?

Speaking of Sandra, I am interested in what they've done with her character. As someone who was so rigid in World Union views, she made an interesting contrast to Phoenix, who was more of a misfit, as you said. I wonder if they've expanded on her at all. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I don't want to spoil myself too much before I even get the book.

_________________________
Interrogator: [True or false?] All mangoes are golden. Nothing golden is cheap. Conclusion - all mangoes are cheap.

Sandra has long dark hair. For Dagmar it does not say I think. The new AI friend of Phoenix is also a blonde. In the Thing store Alicia has chestnut hair and Monica dark hair. Sorry, my mistake. Perhaps they have not all turned blonde after all.

Beverly Blackmore from the monitoring surveillance systems room has auburn hair. But there was another at the beginning who was now a blonde, I can't remember who. Ah yes, Ingrid Valkoinen, the head of the Immigration Academy.

Sandra's role so far has been limited but she is the one who convinced Phoenix to get the promotion in Adrianapolis and who introduced Jean Michel to Phoenix at the beginning. At this point there is almost a conspiracy there, but I have not reached the conclusion of this thread yet. Just as well, it would be a big spoiler.

As I'm sure you can remember, Sandra has only one thing on her mind and she does not disappoint in the book. So casually they talk about such a thing that would make any sensible British person blush...

"Sandra's role so far has been limited but she is the one who convinced Phoenix to get the promotion in Adrianapolis and who introduced Jean Michel to Phoenix at the beginning. At this point there is almost a conspiracy there, but I have not reached the conclusion of this thread yet. Just as well, it would be a big spoiler.

As I'm sure you can remember, Sandra has only one thing on her mind and she does not disappoint in the book. So casually they talk about such a thing that would make any sensible British person blush..."

-------------------------------------

I thought Sandra in the game was a waste of space. She serves a purpose in the book but is still a waste of space. No spoilers coming from this keyboard.

Curiosity won out and I found this which offers some back ground. A short interview with the author.Interview

Rmt, Sandra hasn't changed that much I see. I was hoping her character would be expanded more, but it seems she may be more of a minor character in the book than she was in the game? I think Ingrid was actually blonde in game, but I can't remember now. I'll have to replay the game, not that I need an excuse. I'm also really intrigued by this new AI friend.

Oldmariner, thanks for the link! Very interesting interview. And, yes Barmanbek says, "I had to make plenty of changes to my original story line as the production progressed, many layers to the story were edited out, scenes were cancelled, so much so that even my heroine didn’t look like how I’d imagined her." So Phoenix probably was originally supposed to be blonde.

Ha, Sandra seems to be a polarizing character. I "like" her for her contrast with Phoenix in game, but I wouldn't be able to stand her if she was an actual person. Not because of her "obsessions" but because of all her prejudices.

_________________________
Interrogator: [True or false?] All mangoes are golden. Nothing golden is cheap. Conclusion - all mangoes are cheap.

Sandra personifies better than anyone else in the game and book the greedy personality that pushing capitalism to such an extreme would entail, and how personal relationships go on in the high life of the city. She is in retail.

Apart from Bogdanov, but since he's the murdered victim we don't hear much from him about greed. I would say she is an important character and I really enjoyed all her conversations with Phoenix in the game. I never miss meeting with her at the Rose Café for more gossips.

Very interesting interview. We know now the game would have had much more depth but Barmanbek was prevented for many reasons inherent to producing such games. It is an ambitious and detailed universe he is building here.

And, yes, that was quite an interesting interview. I thought the game already had quite a bit of depth, but it is a shame that so much had to get cut. I still hope we get a Culpa 2 one day, but thanks to yours and oldmariner's comments, I am much more excited for the novel than I was. It sounds as though we are getting the "true story" the way Barmanbek originally conceived it, which is very exciting in and of itself. Now I wish I hadn't put it on my "holiday list" so I could buy it for myself right away.

_________________________
Interrogator: [True or false?] All mangoes are golden. Nothing golden is cheap. Conclusion - all mangoes are cheap.

I see now what the adventure game Culpa Innata was supposed to be. These omissions from the game must have driven Barmanbek absolutely mad over the years. He must have felt something huge was missing from the game, that we did not have enough data to understand most of it.

What he does not know is that for us it simply meant more mysteries and puzzles to solve and put together. And since we knew there would be a part two, we thought it was one huge cliffhanger and we would eventually get all the answers and finally understand.

I would say now that the book is an essential companion to playing the game, because we were meant to know all that or get to learn of it as we played along. What a game that would have been. But then it would have been something else entirely, and maybe it would not have been as successful as this present version we all played has been. These things are hard to predict.

"Sandra personifies better than anyone else in the game and book the greedy personality that pushing capitalism to such an extreme would entail,"

This is where I disagree with the author in his theory. The underlying goal is not greed but power and control. You see Capitalism has been and remains a vehicle that allows the lower end citizen to advance his economic standing through his creativity and individualism. By applying one's creativity their product advances their ability to climb up from poverty. In non Capitalistic societies creativeness is smothered as risk for individual reward is discouraged couched in terms of "fairness" and sharing. Nothing is created without risk taking and no one takes risk without the hope of reward. The greatest societies have been built through individual achievement. I can quote Maggie Thatcher here "Socialism always runs out of other people's money."

Culpa Innata is ripe with constant reminders that under the failed blaming of Capitalism lies the greedy hand attempting to gain control through power. The CDC with their total control of children's development and training. The CDC molds children to the will of the collective to enhance the collective's authority. The authority's total destruction of the family unit is the method that ensured their power. It is even a crime to give birth in this society. Again this is total authoritarian control it has nothing to do with greed. The battle between Immigration and the GPSN over the interview process is not about greed it is about control. Hamilton's planned take over of the academy was all about GPSN's securing control over their adversary. The unit that determines the immigration process directs people's lives and secures power. You see it again with the Renovators not once did they address the bottom line. No profit motive ever appeared. The agents were acting to secure power by interfering with the flow of information, again for control.

It is not greed which created the law each citizen must wear their PA at all times. That requirement is placed to monitor people's movements. Every act, every move, every thought is managed. It is all about total control and ultimate authority.

Barmanbek's indictment of Capitalism is either a ruse to hide the real motive or he failed to recognize the very culprit he so powerfully condemned. His very comments in the interview reenforces he missed the point he made himself repeatedly in his own story. His well crafted narrative undercuts his case against Capitalism. Barmanbek in his own words indicted an authoritarian society exposing the evil to be a concentration of power and control in the hands of a few. I selected very few of the hundreds of power seeking actions he described. He fully illustrated the real criminal lust for power while deflecting the blame to greed for money. Profit for Hamilton was an additional benefit from his seizure of control. You cannot read the indictment of Hamilton's manipulations and not see what he was after. It was not money. Barmanbek's well crafted description of the ultimate goals harbored by each actor reenforces greed for power is the evil within not Capitalism run amok. Through his writing he clearly indicted the greed of power and need for dominating control. Rather than an indictment of Capitalism in reality it is an illustration of how easy it is to deceive a sleeping citizenry. Point the left hand to a popular scapegoat while encouraging political correctness as you grab power with the right hand.

Never-the-less this is a very good novel by a gifted writer. The lesson here is don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.

Yes, extraordinary analysis, I must say. Thank you Oldmariner. I would add though that to control the 90% of the citizens of Adrianopolis with an HDI of only 70%, you must instil greed in them, or in another word the dream of being rich and powerful, as it is hard to get to be powerful without first becoming rich.

But yes, you must ensure that they never actually become rich or powerful. Almost everyone is at the bottom of the pyramid, a powerful symbol in Culpa Innata. And the symbol of the butterfly would be to free yourself from all this altogether and become a star in the universe instead. The metamorphosis into something more meaningful, answers to the existential crisis Phoenix Wallis is going through.

You are right that it is all about power, and maybe this is less an indictment against capitalism, than actually an indictment of where too much greed could push us into an extreme form of capitalism which no longer works for almost everyone. On that point Culpa Innata was certainly visionary as this is what is happening now.

The butterfly and pyramid two symbols I had not thought of, excellent point.

You see we need both, a decentralized government controlled by the people. The government must set reasonable "rules" while not infringing upon the inherent rights of the people. You see the people have a right to seek happiness. That means they also must be allowed to fail. They have a "right to seek" but there is no right to "have happiness."

At the same time we need business, not necessarily large corporations but free business endeavors, to expand growth, jobs and opportunities. Demonizing one at the expense of the other is a rouge's game meant to deceive.

It is called checks and balances. Our dear friend April Ryan astutely understood the need for the Balance.